The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 28, 2014, 10:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Seems the answer to this one is:

Baseball (all codes) - out.
Softball (all codes) - foul ball.

Softball makes more sense, imho.

In every other interference I can think of, the logic behind calling someone out for it is that they prevented the possibility of an out happening. If the ball is in foul territory on the ground, there's no possibility of an out happening - an out for interference makes no sense to me (although I'll call it in baseball because I'm supposed to).
So in softball it's OK to run over a fielder as long as the ball is over foul ground? I think not and thus think the baseball ruling is the proper one.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 28, 2014, 11:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
So in softball it's OK to run over a fielder as long as the ball is over foul ground? I think not and thus think the baseball ruling is the proper one.
Run over? No - malicious contact is still malicious contact.

But preventing a fielder from making an out should be an out. Preventing them from causing a ball to become foul should be a foul.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 28, 2014, 01:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Run over? No - malicious contact is still malicious contact.

But preventing a fielder from making an out should be an out. Preventing them from causing a ball to become foul should be a foul.
The rules posted on the softball side just say it's a foul ball if the runner interferes with the fielder.

Just a foul ball even on a foul fly ball where an out might have been possible?

To me the rules that were posted just serve to define fair/foul but are not addressing the interference part.

The softball side seems confused.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 28, 2014, 02:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
The rules posted on the softball side just say it's a foul ball if the runner interferes with the fielder.

Just a foul ball even on a foul fly ball where an out might have been possible?

To me the rules that were posted just serve to define fair/foul but are not addressing the interference part.

The softball side seems confused.
One person seems confused. The rules, however, don't. It's in the definitions section in all 3 major codes.

PS - a fly ball is a completely different animal than this play, and is (and should be) interference in any code of either sport.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 28, 2014, 06:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
One person seems confused. The rules, however, don't. It's in the definitions section in all 3 major codes.

PS - a fly ball is a completely different animal than this play, and is (and should be) interference in any code of either sport.
I get the part where it says it's a foul ball. I don't get that the interference is ignored.

I'm just wondering if the focus was on the "foul ball" definition and nothing was checked on the interference part as it was assumed that answered the question. The rule about foul clearly includes a reference to interference but I didn't see any reference to interference rules. Or is it just another strange quirk in SB rules?
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 29, 2014, 05:43am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
I get the part where it says it's a foul ball. I don't get that the interference is ignored.

I'm just wondering if the focus was on the "foul ball" definition and nothing was checked on the interference part as it was assumed that answered the question. The rule about foul clearly includes a reference to interference but I didn't see any reference to interference rules. Or is it just another strange quirk in SB rules?
Rich, if the rule called for killing play immediately and ruling the runner out for interference, what difference would it make to declare the ball fair or foul? It's a dead ball and runners would have to return to their bases anyway. It would be moot to also rule the ball foul, since an interference call would result in the same effect.

No, I think the softball rule intended for the runner to not be ruled out for interference if the ultimate ruling is to be a foul ball. Poor choice in words to use "interferes" instead of "hinders"
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 29, 2014, 07:39am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
But preventing a fielder from making an out should be an out. Preventing them from causing a ball to become foul should be a foul.
But we just don't know what the result would be until it's touched or passes first or third.

Real life example: Two years ago I was U1 in a HS playoff game. In back-to-back half-innings, we had slow-rolling "cue shots" toward first that were originally well in foul ground. Both ended up hitting the first base bag.

One kicked back into foul ground, with B/R safe at first, the other caromed directly to F3 who was able to retire B/R. Both results benefited the same team, which went on to win a one-run game.

And once again, runners know they're not supposed to intefere with fielders going after a ball.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 29, 2014, 09:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT1 View Post
But we just don't know what the result would be until it's touched or passes first or third.

Real life example: Two years ago I was U1 in a HS playoff game. In back-to-back half-innings, we had slow-rolling "cue shots" toward first that were originally well in foul ground. Both ended up hitting the first base bag.

One kicked back into foul ground, with B/R safe at first, the other caromed directly to F3 who was able to retire B/R. Both results benefited the same team, which went on to win a one-run game.

And once again, runners know they're not supposed to intefere with fielders going after a ball.
I'd bet that at the younger levels at least the runners know they have a right to the baseline.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 29, 2014, 07:00pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT1 View Post
But we just don't know what the result would be until it's touched or passes first or third.
But if the runner hinders the fielder from touching the ball while it's in foul territory, what happens afterward shouldn't matter. The ball should be killed at that moment and ruled foul, since that's what it would have been had the fielder not been hindered.

That's how softball rules it anyway. Should be that way in baseball as well.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:38am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
I understand your point. And I really wouldn't have a problem if baseball rules read that way. But I don't think we want to get into having one rule for a ball that might become fair, and another for a ball that will never be fair.

Don't ignore the possibility that F1/F3 might decide at the last moment to let the ball continue to roll, rather than touching it foul.

PLAY: R3, less than two outs. B1 hits a roller in foul ground up the first base line. As F1 is moving to "touch it foul", B1 collides with F1.

If you rule this a foul, then the offense has potentially gained a huge advantage, since R3 would score if the ball ends up being fair.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 30, 2014, 08:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT1 View Post
I understand your point. And I really wouldn't have a problem if baseball rules read that way. But I don't think we want to get into having one rule for a ball that might become fair, and another for a ball that will never be fair.

Don't ignore the possibility that F1/F3 might decide at the last moment to let the ball continue to roll, rather than touching it foul.

PLAY: R3, less than two outs. B1 hits a roller in foul ground up the first base line. As F1 is moving to "touch it foul", B1 collides with F1.

If you rule this a foul, then the offense has potentially gained a huge advantage, since R3 would score if the ball ends up being fair.
Huh? If you rule this a foul ... it's foul. Right then. It doesn't matter where the ball goes after that. There's no advantaged gained by the offense, it's a foul ball.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT1 View Post
I understand your point. And I really wouldn't have a problem if baseball rules read that way. But I don't think we want to get into having one rule for a ball that might become fair, and another for a ball that will never be fair.

Don't ignore the possibility that F1/F3 might decide at the last moment to let the ball continue to roll, rather than touching it foul.

PLAY: R3, less than two outs. B1 hits a roller in foul ground up the first base line. As F1 is moving to "touch it foul", B1 collides with F1.

If you rule this a foul, then the offense has potentially gained a huge advantage, since R3 would score if the ball ends up being fair.
She's going to touch it foul. Waiting to see if it goes fair only lets the runners have more time to get to the base. 98% chance of no out and the run scoring. Not gonna happen.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fan Interference MOofficial Basketball 23 Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:45pm
Umpire Interference / Batter Interference bob jenkins Baseball 17 Mon Feb 06, 2012 09:57pm
batters interference/interference by teammate _Bruno_ Baseball 7 Mon Apr 07, 2008 07:28am
Runner interference versus umpire interference Jay R Baseball 1 Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm
fan interference? [email protected] Baseball 14 Tue Apr 15, 2003 02:43pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1